Bolitics The New Condem Government

[meregreen]

Except for the one group who really needed it of course. The F******g bankers.

Edited November 5, 2014 by meregreen

[Risso]

Without going into the whole thang, the Liberty one always cracks me up. Not come across a government in my nearly fifty years on the planet that has done anything but restrict liberty.

 

The Blair government being the worst of the lot.

[bickster]

Without going into the whole thang, the Liberty one always cracks me up. Not come across a government in my nearly fifty years on the planet that has done anything but restrict liberty.

 

The Blair government being the worst of the lot.

Yep, I'd probably agree

[MakemineVanilla]

 

 

 

With those values you've gone for the Tories?

 

Why, who would you suggest fits those values better?

 

 

Liberty - I think all parties offer this. I don't think a party offering oppression would get many votes to be quite honest, it's just not a popular idea.

Equality of opportunity - No party has done more for equality than Labour.

Low / Minimal taxes - Income taxes have been lowered for some, yes, including the very highest earners and corporations, at the same time new taxes are created to make up for it, not to mention the increase in VAT which added up probably out weighs the small tax cut for the lowest earners.

Small government - Not quite sure what you mean by this? Small as in nobody takes any notices? Easily slapped down by Angela Merkel? That kind of thing?

 

Small government is as it sounds, really. It's a combination of fewer, smaller departments in government, and a general desire to reduce bureaucracy through having less politicians and policies. 'Big Government' would be a government that expands into all areas of day to day life and legislates all areas of everything, small government is one that reduces itself to 'vital' areas of governance. It's more of an American idea, these days, and become associated with general 'anything to do with governance is suspicious' mindset. It's a typical link to conservatism as, in general, big government means more people to do more stuff required, meaning more tax to pay for it, and generally assumes more meddling in peoples affairs which can be/is an attack on liberty.

 

 

 

The other main problem with big government is that it leads directly to the sort of crony capitalism which brought about the financial crisis.

 

Both Tory and Labour are big sponsors of crony capitalism.

 

Both parties are intent on fattening up the banks by setting interest rates artificially low to increase margins for banks at the expense of savers.

 

Both parties refuse to compete with the banks by keeping NS&I products as unattractive as possible, despite the obvious advantages of repatriating the Country's debt.

 

Both parties hand out multi-billion-pound contracts to private companies.

 

When Friedman argues for small government it sounds perfectly reasonable but that does not mean that the advocates of small government, whether they be Republican or Conservative, ever achieve it.

 

The argument really is about who benefits from government largesse not whether to actually reduce the size of government.

 

The Tory links to banking means that they are direct beneficiaries of the power of government to hand out public money for private interests.

 

Labour's rhetoric might be different but their policies are the same.

 

If the Tories were serious about cutting the size of Government they couldn't have had a better time than the last four years to do it, but they refused to even cut the deficit.

[Mantis]

Small Government is a euphemism for Your on your own mate I've got mine and aim to keep it.Can't be having any of these pesky Govt run schemes to help those in need, it might cost me money.

 

It really isn't.

 

It would be a bit like me saying the social safety net is a euphemism for supporting benefit scroungers and people who are too lazy to work. I think we both know that isn't the case.

 

Then what is your definition of being socially conservative? Maybe give some examples of policies you would support.

Like many ideologies I'd say it's pretty hard to define. In favour of traditional values? But then again that's such a vague term.

 

I wouldn't class myself as a social conservative.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Mantis

[snowychap]

That Melanie Phillips is one of the most despicable people I've ever heard opening her gob.

[donnie]

That Melanie Phillips is one of the most despicable people I've ever heard opening her gob.

Why?? Everything she just said was spot on.

[snowychap]

That Melanie Phillips is one of the most despicable people I've ever heard opening her gob.

Why?? Everything she just said was spot on.

I'm not surprised that you hold that opinion; you shouldn't be surprised that I don't. :shrug: Edited November 6, 2014 by snowychap

[chrisp65]

Melanie Philips in brief: 'hey, I'm from immigrant stock, but this place is full now and we don't want people who are culturally different to us, pull up the bridge'

 

or to put it in less words: 'hey, I'm alright, **** you'

 

 

.....and now: 'we've created a paedophile society by giving girls sex education'

 

**** nasty idiot

 

 

-----

I didn't know who she was at the time, a quick wiki check this morning and who'd have thunked it, she writes for the Daily Mail. 

Edited November 7, 2014 by chrisp65

[colhint]

Its seems as though Cameron was right on this Juncker chap then. Well whether he was right or not, Juncker, it appears, signed off a lot of these corporate tax avoidance schemes in Luxembourg, and now is the Leader of the EU. 

 

I should imagine that will annoy the French and Germans

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/06/luxembourg-jean-claude-juncker-pressure-tax-deals

[Eames]

Melanie Philips in brief: 'hey, I'm from immigrant stock, but this place is full now and we don't want people who are culturally different to us, pull up the bridge'

 

or to put it in less words: 'hey, I'm alright, **** you'

 

 

.....and now: 'we've created a paedophile society by giving girls sex education'

 

**** nasty idiot

 

 

-----

I didn't know who she was at the time, a quick wiki check this morning and who'd have thunked it, she writes for the Daily Mail. 

According to Marcus Brigstoke, she's the one to whom the other Daily Mail columnists say "steady on Mel, thats a bit right wing" 

 

A vile individual. 

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Coincidentally Juncker also promised to take the investor-state dispute settlement out of TTIP, which allowed corporations to sue governments for any guvmint action that led or would lead to loss of earnings (plain packaging on cigarettes for example), an issue which Cameron is decidedly less vocal about.

[MakemineVanilla]

Melanie Philips in brief: 'hey, I'm from immigrant stock, but this place is full now and we don't want people who are culturally different to us, pull up the bridge'

 

or to put it in less words: 'hey, I'm alright, **** you'

 

 

.....and now: 'we've created a paedophile society by giving girls sex education'

 

**** nasty idiot

 

 

-----

I didn't know who she was at the time, a quick wiki check this morning and who'd have thunked it, she writes for the Daily Mail. 

 

You won't be surprised that I didn't find much to disagree with, in what Phillips said.

 

It is no coincidence that the argument for immigration is strictly confined to their economic contribution because it conveniently avoids issues such as pressure on public services and effects on culture, crime and political values.

 

There is a correlation between an increase in both property crime and violence. (see Wiki)

 

Her opinion about the deliberate sexualisation of children and the right of young girls to have sex, might have been badly expressed, but that doesn't make it any less true.

 

A 14-year-old has the right to go on the pill without informing her parents.

 

Read Greer's Female Eunuch, the very title of which was based on society's denial of women's sexuality (1970) and women's right to have a sex life. Second-wave feminism was substantially about 'sexual liberation' not just about female emancipation.

 

By the time Germaine Greer wrote her book Sex and Destiny (1984) she had changed her mind about whether sexual liberation had been a good idea, and had serious reservations about its consequences for women.

 

So Phillips is right when she says that we are hypocritical in our denial about the sort of sexual climate which existed in the 1960s and 70s, and even today.

 

But as a contributor to The Daily Mail she must be aware that the paper is astoundingly hypocritical when it publishes outraged articles about the sexualisation of you girls, on the same page as it parades images of sexualised girls.

 

Phillips was also right about how a culture of unaccountability has insulated the people who run our institutions from blame or censure: so we have endless enquiries where no one is ever held accountable - except dead people.

 

I think Phillips' Jewish forebears would be cast as asylum seekers, which the vast majority of immigrants are not.

[snowychap]

It is no coincidence that the argument for immigration is strictly confined to their economic contribution because it conveniently avoids issues such as pressure on public services and effects on culture, crime and political values.

The way you have phrased that seems intentionally to imply that the 'effects on culture, crime and political views' of immigration are necessarily negative.

There is a correlation between an increase in both property crime and violence. (see Wiki)

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

Is your suggestion that there is a correlation between immigration and an increase in crime and violence or that there is a correlation between an increase in crime and an increase in violence?

'see Wiki'? How about no.

You want to make a claim then you bring the information that you believe is in support of that claim to the table - don't come on here and tell people to go and look for the stuff themselves.

Edited November 7, 2014 by snowychap

[MakemineVanilla]

 

It is no coincidence that the argument for immigration is strictly confined to their economic contribution because it conveniently avoids issues such as pressure on public services and effects on culture, crime and political values.

The way you have phrased that seems intentionally to imply that the 'effects on culture, crime and political views' of immigration are necessarily negative.

There is a correlation between an increase in both property crime and violence. (see Wiki)

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

Is that your suggestion that there is a correlation between immigration and an increase in crime and violence or that there is a correlation between an increase in crime and an increase in violence?

'see Wiki'? How about no.

You want to make a claim then you bring the information that you believe is in support of that claim to the table - don't come on here and tell people to go and look for the stuff themselves.

 

 

My apologies.

 

According to The Handbook of Crime Correlates: 'Most studies on immigrants have found higher rates of crime'.

[snowychap]

The page goes on:

However, this varies greatly depending on the country of origin with immigrants from some regions having lower crime rates than the indigenous population.

Not sure where it includes 'violence' as per your original post.

Edit: Without reading the book itself and knowing the context in which these statements were made, I'd say they're pretty worthless for this kind of discussion -- certainly if being used as some sort of rock of fact on which to build an argument.

Edited November 7, 2014 by snowychap

[chrisp65]

 

Melanie Philips in brief: 'hey, I'm from immigrant stock, but this place is full now and we don't want people who are culturally different to us, pull up the bridge'

 

or to put it in less words: 'hey, I'm alright, **** you'

 

 

.....and now: 'we've created a paedophile society by giving girls sex education'

 

**** nasty idiot

 

 

-----

I didn't know who she was at the time, a quick wiki check this morning and who'd have thunked it, she writes for the Daily Mail. 

 

You won't be surprised that I didn't find much to disagree with, in what Phillips said.

 

 

 

correct

[blandy]

...the argument for immigration is strictly confined to their economic contribution because it conveniently avoids issues such as pressure on public services and effects on culture, crime and political values.

That's another of those posts to which the correct response is "what utter bollocks".

Unless of course you (not you personally, MMV) live in a world cut off from discussions about the contribution of immigrants to the NHS, and saving lives, or to our national arts and culture - music, art, food, television, film, and all that kind of thing. From Ireland to India and from China to Japan to the West indies - from all over basically, there's been much gained and much celebrated from immigration.

If anything more of the argument has been about " we can't have all these furiners comin over 'ere and taking our jobs and benefits and houses".

Some politicians have made a mess of countering this gibberish, for sure, with dry quotes about "net economic benefit", but to say the "argument for immigration" is strictly confined to economics is just plain wrong.

[chrisp65]

I suspect MMV is actually a well rounded broadly leftist individual, married, content and gently prodding us all into repeatedly re confirming our allegiance to the internationale.

 

It's an exercise in political muscle memory, for when we one day go outside and interact with actual people.

[blandy]

 

go outside and interact with actual people.